Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 5:48 am Post subject: Stelios. Either Ignore Him or Call for Him to be Banned

Stelios. Either Ignore Him or Call for Him to be Banned

Prole,
Stelios is prone to misleading statements, as you must now realise. He is also abusive, when asked to clarify his inaccuracies, lies and unwarranted personal attacks. He has recently accused me of hate speech and racism. He does this in the time-honoured way of asking questions such as: ‘Are you some kind of racist who does not like Iranians?’

Such techniques are epitomised in an exchange which we had, when—in order to make a point about something or other—he wrote to the effect that Andre Agassi is an Iranian Christian. When I pointed out that this was not the case, his response was much as it was to your questioning him about who had said what, and to whom:

Stelios wrote:

to Prole: I am pleased you have nothing better to do with your life that pick nits. Meanwhile what exactly have you achieved?
But do carry on because by the time you have finally dotted all you 'i's and crossed all your 't's it will be too late and nobody will give a toss.

Stelios wrote:

to Anthony Lawson: I dont know what your problem is with this. There are many many people in the world who have Iranian backgrounds. Jews, Christians, Muslims etc...

Are you some kind of racist who does not like Iranians?
What are you making the argument about it is not a big deal.

Whether or not he gets things wrong out of stupidity, or he lies so as to bolster his own arguments and self esteem, it is difficult to judge. What is certain is that the results are very disruptive, and that this may be his intention cannot be ruled out. My last message to him was posted on the above mentioned website on Thusday August 9, at 12:10 pm Post subject: Adding Insults to Lies - Page 8

Anthony Lawson wrote:

[Conclusion] This attack was prompted by my pointing out, to you, that Andre Agassi is not and never has been an Iranian Christian, as you have misleading claimed. Whether or not it was to back up a point you were attempting to make to me, or to blackcat, your information was incorrect, and, despite being given the opportunity to correct it, you chose not to.

If this is an example of the ethics of a man who so righteously proclaims his spiritual beliefs, then you are an appalling example of the teachings of whichever religious philosophy you claim to embrace. Unless, of course, your religious masters taught you that lying and cheating to get your views accepted was permissible, then you have learned well.

He has not responded, and it does not surprise me to find him ‘contributing’ to this thread, and doing the same kind of thing to you as he has just been doing to me.

This website used to be headed British 9/11 Truth..., and I’m not sure whether it was ethical of the moderators to change its name to: Peacing it Together, without consultation with the membership. In any event, the new title is a bad pun, because it should be ‘Piecing’, if the idea is Piecing the 9/11 jigsaw together. One can understand what the punsters were aiming at with ‘Peacing,’ but it doesn’t work, and the idea should have been scrapped.

Nevertheless, the concept of being as accurate as possible—and doing research when in doubt—should be inherent in all websites whose purpose is to seek the truth about whatever subject is under discussion. Lies and deliberately misleading statements should have no place in a forum with the serious aim of debunking the lies and misleading statements of others.

Stelios is constantly being untruthful, and when questioned about his misleading statements, he wastes everyone’s time attempting to wriggle out of the holes he keeps digging for himself. Or is he digging them for his victims? Whatever his purpose, I would like to suggest that the next time Stelios deliberately lies, misquotes someone, or makes accusations without merit or documented backup, that he is banned._________________The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.

Jimmy Connors came by to witness the young prodigy and hit a few balls with him. In fact, Agassi had started much younger. His father, Emmanuel "Mike" Agassi, an Iranian immigrant, determined to raise a champ, had hung a ball and racquet over Andre's crib and by the age of two, young Agassi could use that racquet to serve the ball."

I came on this thread to correct misinformation that is damaging and had originated from this forum.

I agree with you:

Quote:

Nevertheless, the concept of being as accurate as possible—and doing research when in doubt—should be inherent in all websites whose purpose is to seek the truth about whatever subject is under discussion. Lies and deliberately misleading statements should have no place in a forum with the serious aim of debunking the lies and misleading statements of others.

If the Truth is your end then it must be your means.

As for Stelios:

Quote:

I am pleased you have nothing better to do with your life that pick nits. Meanwhile what exactly have you achieved?

But do carry on because by the time you have finally dotted all you 'i's and crossed all your 't's it will be too late and nobody will give a toss.

Nit picking Stelios? As in, 'What difference does it make whether they caught the 7.40 or another train? We know they were in London that day so they must have got there somehow?'

Too late Stelios? Too late for what? The charges against the 3 accused of complicity in July 7th, Mohammed Shakil, Sadeer Saleem and Waheed Ali, appear to have changed from:

Quote:

The charge against them alleges that between November 1, 2004, and June 29, 2005, they “unlawfully and maliciously” conspired with the four 7/7 bombers - Khan, Tanweer, Lindsay and Hussein – to cause “by explosive substance, explosions on the Transport for London system and/or tourist attractions in London of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property”.

To:

Quote:

The conspiracy is alleged to have taken place between January 1, 2004 and July 8, 2005, the day after the deadly attacks on three Tube trains and one bus.

Which means there will be a court case next Easter which will examine at least some of these events. Not that I believe we have courts of justice, given the appalling outcomes to the Barot, Crevice and 21/7 trials, but 7/7 will be covered in the media, inaccurately I know, but at least it will be in the public consciousness again.

edit: Does anyone here know who James Apcar is btw?_________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Jimmy Connors came by to witness the young prodigy and hit a few balls with him. In fact, Agassi had started much younger. His father, Emmanuel "Mike" Agassi, an Iranian immigrant, determined to raise a champ, had hung a ball and racquet over Andre's crib and by the age of two, young Agassi could use that racquet to serve the ball."

The above does not indicate that Andre Agassi is an Iranian. It indicates that Andre Agassi’s father was. However, if you do a little more research you will find several web pages which indicate that Andre Agassi’s father was born in Armenia, which is not now and never has been a part of Iran. The fact that the older Agassi boxed, at Olympic level, for Iran, may mean that he was a naturalised Iranian, or that he took up Iranian citizenship, but he immigrated to the United States in 1952 and his son, Andre, was not born until April 29th, 1970 in Las Vegas, Nevada—18 years later—which makes Andre Agassi a citizen of the United States of America.

However, Stelios then attempted to cover his mistake by writing about Andre Agassi’s father, as though his nationality was the issue, when it definitely was not. And note the irritation in the first sentence, as though his misinformation is of no importance; just a ‘little thing.’

Stelios wrote:

Must you argue abiout every little thing?
Emanuel Agassian is Andre Agasii's father. Who was born in what was then called PERSIA in 1932. Iran has MANY ethnic minorities. Armenians, Azeris, Kurds, Ossetians, Baluchis, Farsis and Arabs.

If you follow the discussion, you will find much more of that kind of thing including unwarranted innuendos such as:

Stelios wrote:

Moving on Anthony what exactly is getting you wound up about Iranians?

Now I am a racist who does not like Iranians because I have had the temerity to point out that Andre Agassi is not one. Here’s how that works, in a mind like Stelios’s:

Ryan Giggs plays for West Ham United.

No he doesn’t. He plays for Manchester United.

Whatsamatta! Don’t you like West Ham United?

zoomer wrote:

So, take it up with them!!

No, you take it up with Stelios and tell him to stop lying and attempting to twist the truth around._________________The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.

Perhaps you will accuse me of nitpicking also, and to be honest from what I've read here, it really wouldn't surprise me if you do, but there is a difference between speaking of the number who died that day and whether or not they were victims or perpetrators. Furthermore, if you are going to state that only 52 died that day on the basis that there is no proof that the four accused were in London - which you are quite correct in saying there is not - then you are also opening yourself up to challenges that there is no proof that any of the named dead were in London. So really, it is a pointless exercise to argue over how many died based on who was or wasn't in London, because none of us knows for sure, obectively, that anyone was.
52 people were reported dead as victims of the explosions and 4 were reported dead as the suspected perpetrators. I would suggest that airbrushing the four accused out of the death toll, as the media always do, would simply invite challenges for you to prove where exactly they were and where they are now, if they were not killed on July 7th 2005. Since none of us have any proof of their continued existence, it is not unreasonable to assume they died, whether in those explosions or elsewhere. Especially since two of them have been reportedly laid to rest by their families.

Finally, you said to Prole:

Quote:

I am not the only one you have wound up in this way so i know it is nothing perculiar on my part.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with this statement. Prole is doing nothing but correcting erroneous information regarding misinformation and speculative theories being stated as fact around the internet by people claiming to be trying to raise awareness of the anomalies and inconsistencies in the official account of July 7th 2005. How this can be interpreted as 'winding people up' is beyond my comprehension. I am guessing that you would not be impressed if you were to come across people making similar claims regarding the events of 11/9, which you knew were not true, having spent what I assume is a great deal of time researching this particular event - I am sure you would correct them also. Since we are all in the business of trying to get the record set as straight as possible, I am surprised that you would refer to this as 'nitpicking'. I personally consider no aspect of the events of July 7th 2005 too trivial or unimportant - if you don't 'dot every i' and 'cross every t' then how do you know what you've missed? I would sooner do this than attempt to fill in the blanks myself based on likelihoods or opinions rather than facts.
I's need to be dotted and t's need to be crossed in order for people to understand words, and consequently sentences, as fully and comprehensively as possible. Perhaps you will consider this analogy before using attention to detail as a way of berating someone.

Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: Re: Stelios. Either Ignore Him or Call for Him to be Banned

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement and have run out of ideas of how to get Ian Neal to get rid of this eoteric title from the heding of each page - the google links etc etc.
However I do think it would go well UNDER the main headline.

My main gripe is that it is seriously confusing for people who are surfing through - however I like the aspect of it being about peace/nonviolence etc so would tolerating it staying UNDER the main headline in a banner at the top for example.

It's a pity that there appears to be a consensus on the forum to reverse this clique decision but no action from those with the power to do so.

Anyway........ sorry for the divertissiment - and hold this channel - as the DIRECTOR of the film has just arrived and begun his own thread - no doubt egged on by the squabbling and, dare I say, nit-picking on all sides on this thread.
Strictly speaking I should merge his new thread with this existing one but it makes sense here to make a break does it not???
Would anyone who want to use insults, cheap digs and bad language please stay on this thread and serious discussers of the film please post.......

This website used to be headed British 9/11 Truth..., and I’m not sure whether it was ethical of the moderators to change its name to: Peacing it Together, without consultation with the membership. In any event, the new title is a bad pun, because it should be ‘Piecing’, if the idea is Piecing the 9/11 jigsaw together. One can understand what the punsters were aiming at with ‘Peacing,’ but it doesn’t work, and the idea should have been scrapped.

Anyway........ sorry for the divertissiment - and hold this channel - as the DIRECTOR of the film has just arrived and begun his own thread - no doubt egged on by the squabbling and, dare I say, nit-picking on all sides on this thread.

You did dare to say ‘nit-picking…’ Tony, but what did you mean when you wrote it? Is it nit-picking to insist that information is fairly presented and is as factually correct as is possible?

Given the wealth of information at one's fingertips these days, it shouldn't be too difficult to be reasonably accurate with one's assertions about a vast array of facts. Personal opinions, are, of course a different matter. But attempting to back up personal opinions with false data makes those opinions as suspect as that upon which they are based.

So, is it nit-picking for someone to ask, repeatedly, for another person to clarify a statement which appears to be either untrue; a mistake or a deliberate attempt at planting disinformation?

As difficult a job as it must be, either the forum is going to be properly moderated, with the obvious troublemakers, persistent liars and providers of misinformation weeded out and banned, or it will continue to be a free-for-all, with insults, lies and bad language.

You can’t have it both ways.

I’ve heard a lot of ‘truth’ sayings, but Prole has just introduced me to a new one, which is well worth repeating, and would be an excellent replacement for ‘Peacing it Together’ (ugh):

If the Truth is your end then it must be your means._________________The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.

Hello Kier nice to see you reaappearing to the aid of your leader.
Although i am pretty sure she is capable of speaking for herself.
By arguing about this number you have both helped show all of us on this board that you are in fact supporters of most of the official 7/7 conspiracy.
Personally i am a down to earth kind of bloke. I have not seen any evidence to prove that 4 guys were in London that day.
I have not seen the evidence and neither has anyone else because NONE of it has been released and it is therefore possible that NONE exists.
Therefore you Kier and Prole both stating the four bombers MUST be added to the death toll is a very strange assertion.

I dont want to be the pot calling the kettle black but EVERYONE who has read our exchanges will be crystal clear that you are making the SUGGESTION that 4 bombers were in London that day and died.
I therefore after reading what you have both written say for everyone to read that that is your BELIEF.
I disagree with your belief and you have not a shred of evidence to back up your claims.
My belief is until evidence to the contrary is made public that those 4 alleged bombers may not have actually been on the trains or the bus and may not have carried out the bombings.
The public has not seen any evidence.

So i am going to ask you and i want an honest answer from both of you.
You have both stated in your own way that you believe the 4 bombers were killed during the events of 7/7.
So what is it about 7/7 that you believe the authorities have lied to you about? In your various posts on this board you have constantly tried to steer people into accepting the official line. This present thread is part of that as everyone can read.
Please tell me i am reading your very explicit statements wrong - julyseveth.co.uk in the guise of Prole and Kier - you believe that the 4 alleged bombers were killed on 7/7.
Despite No cctv bus, no cctv train, no cctv tube, no cctv platforms, no cctv escalators, no cctv ticket halls, no cctv car park, no witnesses at ticket hall, no witnesses bus, no witnesses mcdonalds, no witnesses platforms, etc, train times not matching, same persons documents found at seperate crime scenes despite being made of paper and plastic which should not have survived bombs, etc
So despite all these discrepancies you both have suggested that the 4 were killed on that day amongst the other victims raising the number to 56.
I disagree with you.
Call me a liar or whatever makes you feel happy i really dont give one i own my own brain and i am not going to let you brainwash me into believing something i know does not make any sense.

Dont forget your leader started the argument. Look back if you want.
I understand the reason she doesnt like me. Its because i always quote the example of the IRA as 'real' terrorists and todays false flags chapathi baggers and calor gas doctors as examples of 'fake' terrorists.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As for this total and utter plonker Anthony Lawson who calls himself an 'inventor'
Can you believe the ashole has been arguing about Andre Agassi across several threads. Anyone who was not totally fed up and bored by the constant bickering and is still willing to listen. It was alleged by someone (not Anthony Lawson) that Iran does not have Christians and Jews. I responded by giving Agassi as an example of an Iranian Christian and Lord David Alliance as an example of an Iranian Jew. I also stated there are many ethnic minorities in Iran including - Kurds, Azeris, Armenians, Ossetians, Baluchis, Arabs as well as Afghan refugees and Iraqi refugees. Iran has Muslims, Christians, Atheist, Zoroastrians and the largest Jewish population outside of occupied Palestine.
That last bit seemed to wind Anthony up as much as Andre Agassi. so much so that he stuck his nose in and now has stuck his nose into this thread which clearly being about 7/7 was by any stretch was unconnected.
I find many things Anthony has said across various threads have been racist, blapheming, islamophobic, anti semetic, and just downright mad. The moderators have not deleted his posts but now he asks them to delete me because he cannot accept Andre Agssi as being of Iranian Christian origin.
Anthony the way you are going on and on about this very very minor issue leads me to believe you are a sandwich short of a picnic mate.
GET A LIFE._________________

I find many things Anthony has said across various threads have been racist, blapheming, islamophobic, anti semetic, and just downright mad. The moderators have not deleted his posts but now he asks them to delete me because he cannot accept Andre Agssi as being of Iranian Christian origin.

What I have placed in bold, in the above quote, is not what you originally wrote, and if you can’t remember, you can look it up.

You are lying, and I have a screenshot to prove it. So don’t try and pop the word ‘origin’ into your post. It’s too late.

Your other accusations are equally false. And I am certainly not your mate.

Belief begins with trust. You are not to be trusted, so no one should believe what you write._________________The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.

I don't even know where to start with your latest insulting attack on J7 - along with Gosling on this thread you choose to make false accusations which you cannot back up with any evidence.

stelios wrote:

Hello Kier nice to see you reaappearing to the aid of your leader.

There are three editors of the J7 website - the Antagonist, Kier and myself. We don't have leaders nor do we follow them. There are over 250 members of the J7 People's Investigation forum, many of whom carry out serious research.

Can I just ask you stelios, if 56 people didn't die on 7/7 - including the 4 accused - (until an inquest is convened into their deaths none of us can be certain of this number as death certificates are not officially issued until an inquest is held) where are these 4 now?

edit: This statement doesn't infer that I or J7 maintain that they died where the official version states they did, if you check the J7 website there is a lot of evidence that some of the victims are unlikely to have died where it is reported that they did:

J7 have always maintained that we do not know what happened that day as the official version remains unproven and no evidence has been released into the public domain which conclusively and compellingly supports this version, we will continue to campaign for the release of the evidence and a fully independent public inquiry outside of the IA2005.

If you actually know what did happen on 7/7 please tell._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Prole,
That’s a dangerous request, someone like Stelios is likely to tell you what happened on 7/7, whether he knows anything about it, or not. False rumours can start that way.

You have NOTHING to contribute to the debate which actually happens to be 7/7. Your personal attacks on me are water off a ducks back. Your opinion is worth jack to most of the people on this board. As you are an Australian based in Hong Kong please can you tell us what is your opinion regarding 7/7. Which is after all the topic.
Or else keep your vitriol to yourself.

Anthony Lawson wrote:

You are lying, and I have a screenshot to prove it.

You are having a bubble?
Dont they have people sent to the funny farm in your country?

Prole wrote:

to Stelios: If you actually know what did happen on 7/7 please tell.

After two years of forensic investigation you are asking me (a nobody) to tell you what happened. It really ought to be you telling me and i think you ought you should be telling the whole world.

You mentioned 2 bombers funerals.
What happened to the bodies of the other 2 bombers. Have you seen and reprinted the autopsy reports of all four bombers or at least the two whose funerals you mentioned. And were the bodies damaged as though in an explosion? Did the wives positively identify the bodies?
Kier wrote:

keir wrote:

Especially since two of them have been reportedly laid to rest by their families.

So when EXACTLY were these funerals. Did the media forget to report them?

I really am getting worried. You J7 researchers are supposed to be exposing the lies about 7/7 and instead you appear to be starting your own canards.
You pop up every now and then highjacking this messageboard and drop little snippets of so called FACTS. The only evidence you provide is back links to your website. Other than increasing traffic to your site, my visit to your site did not spot the missing evidence of 4 bombers having died nor did i find details of the funerals of the 2 bombers.

You have made a number of claims and everone on this site expects you to substantiate them. I have never pretended to be a PhD on 7/7 but you have claimed to be specialists in 7/7. So please put up or shut up.
When i said it is MY opinion that the four bombers were not killed as reported, it is clearly labelled as MY opinion. When your group suggests that the 4 were killed on 7/7 and that 2 have had funerals that is YOUR opinion but your opinion is no more accurate than mine despite your protestations.
Because it is no less speculative than mine.

Big difference is i dont pretend to be a PhD on 7/7 you 3 do._________________

Last edited by karlos on Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:17 am; edited 2 times in total

Stelios apologies if I don't respond to all your false accusations and attacks, I have neither the time to waste or as one of my daughters would say 'am I bothered?'.

I just wanted to point out that:

stelios wrote:

You J7 researchers are supposed to be exposing the lies about 7/7 and instead you appear to be starting your own canards.

was precisely the reason why I was concerned enough to come onto this thread. False information (canards) was being posted on Thomas Ikimi's website. Information from a leaflet which can be found (uncorrected, despite valiant efforts by J7 to correct many of these errors) on these boards was posted there by a James Apcar. Numeral posted corrections to these.

Then James Apcar attempted to make his name a direct link to the J7 website and posted that 7/7 was definitely a Mossad job. Cmain corrected this misinformation.

We take this spreading of canards and misinformation extremely seriously, enough so to come on here and point this out. We'd hope that many here would share our concerns and appreciate our efforts, but no, yourself and Tony Gosling choose to take swipes at us.

In the light of the damage done to 9/11 by recent Shayler 'revelations' perhaps a bit more circumspection if not reflection on your part might be wise?_________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Stelios apologies if I don't respond to all your false accusations and attacks, I have neither the time to waste or as one of my daughters would say 'am I bothered?'.

You and Tony Blair both.
BUT YOU HAVE RESPONDED and you are bothered.
Because you have been found out spreading canards.

Prole wrote:

In the light of the damage done to 9/11 by recent Shayler 'revelations' perhaps a bit more circumspection if not reflection on your part might be wise?

Prole decides attack is the best form of defence.
Shayler is not a spokesman for this group as you well know. But please remember he appeared on the Jon Ronson show on Radio 4 in a debate with Rachel North as a spokesmen for July Seventh. Instead of attacking me why didn't you attack Jon Ronson for announcing Shayler as your spokesman. Did you ask for a retraction? and why werent you debating 7/7 with Rachel North instead of Shayler?

Kier wrote:

Especially since two of them have been reportedly laid to rest by their families

So after checking your dictionary Prole would you agree that this statement is a canard?_________________

Last edited by karlos on Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:52 am; edited 1 time in total

The funeral took place in the late afternoon
The remains of one of the London suicide bombers who struck on 7 July have been buried in Leeds.

Hasib Hussain, who exploded a device on a bus in Tavistock Square, was buried in a private ceremony near his family's home in Leeds on Wednesday afternoon.

About 40 people attended the service which took place in a part of the graveyard reserved for Muslims.

Hasib Hussain, 18, from the Holbeck area of Leeds was the youngest of the four London bombers.

Police at cemetery

Witnesses to Wednesday's service say the mourners circled the grave reading prayers and then pushed earth into it before walking away.

Police officers patrolled the edge of the cemetery.
Hasib Hussain is the second of the bombers to be buried.

Last week, the body of the Aldgate bomber Shehzad Tanweer, from Beeston in Leeds, was buried at a village in Pakistan.

Funerals have yet to be held for Mohammad Sidique Khan and Jermaine Lindsay.

The four killed 52 people on the London transport system on 7 July.

Shiv Malik claims that MSK was buried in Pakistan at the end of 2005, although no news reports exist. Khan's family were reported to have asked for a second post-mortem but we can't confirm that this ever took place. We have found no reports on Lindsay's burial._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

deleted due to multiple postings of the same comment._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Last edited by Prole on Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:15 am; edited 1 time in total

When i said it is MY opinion that the four bombers were not killed as reported, it is clearly labelled as MY opinion. When your group suggests that the 4 were killed on 7/7 and that 2 have had funerals that is YOUR opinion but your opinion is no more accurate than mine despite your protestations.
Because it is no less speculative than mine.

As you can see, the two funerals are not an opinion, but have been documented and a cursory internet search would have found these reports, Stelios. I do not make claims that I cannot back up with sources and reference, and nor should anybody else - this is my point.

stelios wrote:

I dont want to be the pot calling the kettle black but EVERYONE who has read our exchanges will be crystal clear that you are making the SUGGESTION that 4 bombers were in London that day and died.

Kier wrote:

52 people were reported dead as victims of the explosions and 4 were reported dead as the suspected perpetrators. I would suggest that airbrushing the four accused out of the death toll, as the media always do, would simply invite challenges for you to prove where exactly they were and where they are now, if they were not killed on July 7th 2005. Since none of us have any proof of their continued existence, it is not unreasonable to assume they died, whether in those explosions or elsewhere. Especially since two of them have been reportedly laid to rest by their families.

stelios wrote:

You have both stated in your own way that you believe the 4 bombers were killed during the events of 7/7.

Kier wrote:

Since none of us have any proof of their continued existence, it is not unreasonable to assume they died, whether in those explosions or elsewhere. Especially since two of them have been reportedly laid to rest by their families.

stelios wrote:

Please tell me i am reading your very explicit statements wrong - julyseveth.co.uk in the guise of Prole and Kier - you believe that the 4 alleged bombers were killed on 7/7.

Kier wrote:

Since none of us have any proof of their continued existence, it is not unreasonable to assume they died, whether in those explosions or elsewhere. Especially since two of them have been reportedly laid to rest by their families.

stelios wrote:

So despite all these discrepancies you both have suggested that the 4 were killed on that day amongst the other victims raising the number to 56.

Kier wrote:

Since none of us have any proof of their continued existence, it is not unreasonable to assume they died, whether in those explosions or elsewhere. Especially since two of them have been reportedly laid to rest by their families.

So where exactly did I say that the men definitely died on the morning of July 7th 2005 and in the manner described by the authorities? 56 deaths are due for inquests. This has actually caused some distress to families of the victims. IF those men died on July 7th 2005, their deaths are just as valid and worthy of the same investigation as the others - this is why they should be included in the death toll. Otherwise, we will not know that an inquest was actually carried out. If an inquest does not take place regarding these men, then there will be more questions needing to be asked. Death certificates are unobtainable until the inquests have been carried out.

You are demanding evidence that they died Stelios, but are unable to provide any yourself that they are still alive. This is why I find your attitude so confusing. You quite rightly criticise the authorities because they make assertions that are not backed up with evidence, but do the same thing yourself.
For instance, your claim that Verint was the company which engaged Visor consultants on the morning of July 7th 2005. When we discussed this on a previous thread on this forum, you justified this claim by saying that the scenario made the best sense to you. Because no other company 'fitted the bill'. Because Verint appear to engage in some shady activities. Compare this approach to a critic of truth campaigns, who claims that four disaffected young Muslim men suicide bombed themselves and 52 others in London. They justify the claim because it makes the best sense to them. Because no other possible perpetrators 'fitted the bill'. Because two of them apparently made video messages stating their intentions.

Your evidence of the contact between Verint and Visor arranging the drill? Your transcripts of telephone conversations? Your witnesses? Employees, perhaps, of either company testifying to the contact? Your CCTV evidence? You have such exacting demands of others that you do not appear to apply to yourself.

In contrast to your accusations towards J7, we objectively analyse the available evidence and do not attempt to cloud an already very murky issue with theories of our own, which in turn would hand golden opportunities to truth campaign critics for attack.

Of course you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions; we all are. What I am saying, as I have repeatedly said, is that these should not be stated as fact. You are entitled to investigate the events of July 7th in any way you see fit. J7 are equally entitled to challenge assertions made when no proof being offered to back them up. Especially when attempts are made to link our website and campaign to these claims, as was done with the previously mentioned leaflet, and on Thomas Ikimi's website.

deleted due to multiple postings of the same comment._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Last edited by Prole on Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:17 am; edited 1 time in total

deleted due to multiple postings of the same comment._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Last edited by Prole on Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:20 am; edited 1 time in total

But please remember he appeared on the Jon Ronson show on Radio 4 in a debate with Rachel North as a spokesmen for July Seventh

Clearly another one of his delusions._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Is there any way that people on this thread can focus on a respectful discussion about the facts rather than constant sarcasm and bringing in of alleged 'personalities' to the debate?
Trying to undermine an individual's personality here in public drags the debate into the mud and is a strong indication that you have run out of rational arguments of your own.

Tony,
If the above was directed at my post, warning Prole about Stelios, I would like you to consider the following.

As distasteful as I find the word, calling someone a liar, when they constantly refuse to retract an untrue statement and use abusive language when their error is pointed out to them, is not undermining an individual’s personality. It is telling the truth, and is a legitimate warning to others that the information given by the person in question may not be accurate.

If you care to look through this post, you will note that I and others have been abused and insulted for pointing this out, which follows several accusation of hate speech against me, on another thread.

Quite frankly, with this kind of thing going on; dragging so many debates into the mud—as you put it—unchecked by the moderators, and with the baying hounds snapping at David Shaylor’s feet, demanding the removal of his prior input and even his name, this website is getting too much for me._________________The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.

IMO the J7 forum is a first class resource and I for one hold their combined efforts in very high regard.

Keep up the great work J7.

Thanks Mark, we guessed that Stelios only spoke for a tiny minority here._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Nope, it was directed at everybody as I hoped was clear - sorry if not.
It's such a pity when a serious discussion decends into petty point-scoring.
And any intervention by us mods is seen as backing one side or the other in the debate which it is the last thing we want.
I hope its clear now there has been pettiness on all sides. I was politely requesting we all draw a line under it and return to a non-personalised debate.

Anthony Lawson wrote:

If the above was directed at my post, warning Prole about Stelios, I would like you to consider the following.

Nope, it was directed at everybody as I hoped was clear - sorry if not.
It's such a pity when a serious discussion decends into petty point-scoring.
And any intervention by us mods is seen as backing one side or the other in the debate which it is the last thing we want.
I hope its clear now there has been pettiness on all sides. I was politely requesting we all draw a line under it and return to a non-personalised debate.

Anthony Lawson wrote:

If the above was directed at my post, warning Prole about Stelios, I would like you to consider the following.

I seriously hope you are including yourself in this statement Tony, as it seems to me that your initial responses, attitude and the inaccuracies which you failed to correct or apologise for, are where this problem started._________________'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

I'm not aware of any poll that's been done on this subject, so until you have any evidence to back this claim up, you are just flinging around baseless, evidence free assertions once again.

You certainly do not speak for me Stelios.

IMO the J7 forum is a first class resource and I for one hold their combined efforts in very high regard.

Keep up the great work J7.

Absolutely, I have never joined the J7 forum as I don't feel I have anything to contribute but I visit there often as it gathers up so much useful information on all things "shady". It is a great resource.

I hope its clear now there has been pettiness on all sides. I was politely requesting we all draw a line under it and return to a non-personalised debate. (emphasis added)

Tony,
What you are saying, in effect, is that it is petty to draw attention to the antics of a liar; one who continues to lie to protect his original lie and to abuse others with unacceptable slurs, even when his serial-lying spree has been thoroughly exposed.

Where do we draw the line then? Would it be okay for me to state that Tony Gosling wears frilly bras and knickers and is a closet Satanist?

Let me put it this way: If a moderator for this forum has been made aware that someone is deliberately lying, and declines to take any action, then the forum will fast degenerate into a free for all, where anything goes._________________The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.

The trouble is that its nigh on impossible to discern whether or not someone has a sincerely held opinion or not. What we try to do here as moderators is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt to encourage freedom of expression rather than constanly draw lines about what it is and isn't acceptable to say.
The most boring and annoying trait as far as I can see is the tendancy on topics to start to attack the poster rather than the point (however dubious) they make. If you think the point is moronic the best thing to do is just ignore it and trust that other readers will see through it too.
If you have a serious problem with a poster then PM the moderators reccomending they be banned. We will then consider the proposition.
Now, ain't that fair, as it goes?

Anthony Lawson wrote:

Where do we draw the line then? Would it be okay for me to state that Tony Gosling wears frilly bras and knickers and is a closet Satanist?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum